Saturday, March 31, 2007

while we wait for the next barrageof public hearings in congress,i'll point to encouraging evidencethat even the hard-right, old-guardmedia is finding the courage to con-front the multiple disasters thathave defined this bush presidency.

first, from the wall street journal,a story lauding the courage of a marine.

but -- contrary to our first guess,this marine is not killing peoplesecuring freedom in iraq, at the moment.no, this marine is being singled out for praise by the right-side-business-executives'paper of record for. . . refusing toprosecute a terror case almost certainly built on statements obtained through torture.

this is significant.

very significant. . . not that col.v. stuart couch refused to prosecutea torture-tainted (read: violative ofthe geneva conventions) gitmo case.no -- it is significant that at leastthe more-principled -- right or left,will openly praise good people of conscience who stand up to the rove/cheney/bush sneer of distain for the role of the rule of law in our systemof ordered libety -- do take a look:

". . .When the Pentagon needed someone to prosecute a Guantanamo Bay prisoner linked to 9/11, it turned to Lt. Col. V. Stuart Couch. A Marine Corps pilot and veteran prosecutor, Col. Couch brought a personal connection to the job: His old Marine buddy, Michael "Rocks" Horrocks, was co-pilot on United 175, the second plane to strike the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. . .

Col. Couch refused to bring charges against a suspected terrorist because he thought evidence was tainted by torture. The rare case was a wrenching personal challenge for Col. Couch. . . Going forward, these concerns will likely become more prevalent. . ."

we certainly hope so. and we alsocertainly hope the journal will beginto report on them, regularly -- and in detail.

next -- this from friday's editorial page at the grand old gray lady:

". . .The senators questioning Mr. Sampson pointed to a troubling pattern: many of the fired prosecutors were investigating high-ranking Republicans. He was asked if he was aware that the fired United States attorney in Nevada was investigating a Republican governor, that the fired prosecutor in Arkansas was investigating the Republican governor of Missouri, or that the prosecutor in Arizona was investigating two Republican members of Congress.

Mr. Sampson’s claim that he had only casual knowledge of these highly sensitive investigations was implausible, unless we are to believe that Mr. Gonzales runs a department in which the chief of staff is merely a political hack who has no hand in its substantive work. He added to the suspicions that partisan politics were involved when he made the alarming admission that in the middle of the Scooter Libby investigation, he suggested firing Patrick Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago who was the special prosecutor in the case.

The administration insists that purge was not about partisan politics. But Mr. Sampson’s alternative explanation was not very credible — that the decision about which of these distinguished prosecutors should be fired was left in the hands of someone as young and inept as Mr. Sampson. If this were an above-board, professional process, it strains credulity that virtually no documents were produced when decisions were made, and that none of his recommendations to Mr. Gonzales were in writing.

It is no wonder that the White House is trying to stop Congress from questioning Mr. Rove, Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and other top officials in public, under oath and with a transcript. The more the administration tries to spin the prosecutor purge, the worse it looks. . ."

that is certainly true. and while saturday'snyt opinion page seemed -- to me -- ill-informed about why the judiciary committee's decisionto take the statements of the underlings andperipheral players in the purge scandal mightbe a very savvy move (see earier my post, onthat topic), i do agree with the lady's ultimate punch-line, here:

[Private interviews]". . .must not become a substitute for what this investigation really requires: sworn public testimony under oath by Karl Rove, the presidential adviser; Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel; and everyone else involved. . .

let us hope that this day, and theday that dick cheney is called toexplain himself, under oath, and atpublic hearings, is fast-approaching. . .

keep the pressure on -- write sen.leahy, and rep. conyers (see rightmargin for pictures -- and e-mailcontact addresses) to praise them,and to offer your continued supportof their valiant efforts to assertthe role of the legislative branchin keeping its eye on the manifoldunconstitutional excesses of thisparticular incarnation of the executive branch. . .

all content: (cc) 2007-08

the buddha said

IN LIGHT OF THE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF “A HIGHER INVOLVEMENT” IN I. LEWIS SCOOTER LIBBY’S PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE -- AND THEN THE JULY 2, 2007 PRISON SENTENCE AND IMMEDIATE, BREATH-TAKING JULY 2, 2007 PRESIDENTIAL COMMUTATION OF THAT SENTENCE -- IT IS HIGH TIME TO EXAMINE THE MERITS OF INDICTING THE VICE PRESIDENT, DICK CHENEY, AS THE LEADER OF A CONSPIRACY TO MISUSE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, AND COMPROMISE C.I.A. OPERATIVES — ALL FOR PARTISAN POLITICAL RETRIBUTION.